Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to irrigation project improvement: Part II. How professionals evaluate an irrigation project for its improvement
Planning improvement of an irrigation project often depends on irrigation professionals who conduct the initial survey of the irrigation project. Accordingly, activities for improvement will be different depending on who evaluates the status quo of the irrigation project, because of the diversity of expertise and experience of professionals. A questionnaire survey was conducted to examine how irrigation professionals evaluate an irrigation project, that is, on what evaluation factors (EFs) they place the importance. In the questionnaire, professionals ranked the relative importance of EFs derived from internal process indicators of the Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP). Answers to the questionnaire were processed by the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP, Part I), and then local weights of EFs were obtained as a measure of relative importance of EFs. Those local weights were statistically analyzed by the Anderson-Darling normality test, the F-test and the t-test. Then, they were modeled by probability density functions. The results implied (a) that irrigation professionals give the first priority to water delivery services project-wide and (b) that they consider that irrigation infrastructure (hardware) of primary canals is more important than that of secondary canals. These findings infer that irrigation professionals first consider how well water is controlled and distributed project-wide and second how appropriately primary canals are designed and maintained. Also, their views are divided into two regarding importance of hardware and management, namely some insist that hardware is more important than management and the others insist that management is more important than hardware.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:95:y:2008:i:3:p:205-210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.